Who'd a thunk?
I woke up to beautiful, clear, smog-free skies this morning, went for a good hard run, and then saw this:
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Republican frontrunner Senator John McCain with single-digit leads over Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.
How could this have happened?
In 2006, a Republican party tied to a sinking president and a dismal war was handed a well-earned electoral beating. The party's presidential candidates were dancing around and running away from Bush and Iraq, and the Democrats had strong candidates and an endless supply of fat, facty cudgels to beat their opponents.
In 2008, it looks like we may end up with a Republican president who is an unabashed warmonger, and who shamelessly changed positions towards large parts of the Bush legacy. What the heck?
Advertisement
I don't believe the poll. Turnout alone is going to mean the Dems win. Really, I just think these early polls are wrong.
Also, once the GE really starts, the position on the war is going to be clear. The economy is getting headlines now, but my guess is it's going to be all about the war in the GE. That's where the real distinctions lie, and any Dem would be foolish not to call that out.
Of course, my "the media means everything" theory has to give McCain credit. From what we've seen already, they still love him. Maybe even more than Obama. Too soon to tell, but if that holds, that might determine the election. It did for Bush II.
1.20.2009
January 31, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really hope you're right. The turnout numbers have been awesome so far, and a general election focused on turning out the Democratic base would be a great way to advance a progressive agenda. Screw the independents.
However... It seems like the bright line between supporting and opposing a disastrous war and ongoing occupation has been blurred too much to reappear. I don't have evidence for this, but I can just imagine most people being more worried about their mortgages and stocks than about a war fought mostly by people they don't know. Worse, I can also imagine the tired "Republicans are strong on defense" trope being used effectively by War Hero McCain, because I don't think Democrats in general have the balls to just laugh at it like they should. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood...
January 31, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
because I don't think Democrats in general have the balls to just laugh at it like they should...
Damn, I forgot about this.
Forget it, we're done.
1.20.2009
January 31, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with your intuitions and I disagree that the war issue will flare up again, as long as the U.S. keeps on with retreating to a smaller area in Iraq and the U.S. casuality rate doesn't go up again. After all, hardly anyone pays any attention to the "war" in Afghanistan anymore. The occupation in Iraq will instead be part and parcel of the economic issue, it may even just come down to the debates about how we can stop spending so much money there. And you know, even with far fewer troops there, we're going to have to be giving a lot of money to Iraq one way or another, that's really the issue. I am strongly against having anything like bases there on geo-political grounds, but I don't think most Americans are going to get that riled up about something like that, they are just going to be concerned about what it's going to cost. Things seem to be trending more getting on board with isolationist because of the cost of the alternative, the cost/benefit angle. I can actually foresee the next president getting lots of grief for pushing financial aid for Iraqis.
January 31, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think those are big ifs. You may have seen S Ackerman's story today, about some upwards trends in Iraq. And Afghanistan ain't doing too good these days, and may end up back in the headlines again. (Martha Radis (sp?) was on Bill Maher last week, just returned from reporting there...I forget the details, but it wasn't pretty...)
Maybe it will become a cost issue, and maybe things stay in a lull. But I'm not at all convinced we've seen the last of the headlines about this war.
1.20.2009
January 31, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the polls I've seen, Ind.'s are completely in line with Dems on the war. Are they really going to put that aside and vote McCain?
I understand about Kennedy, and there's probably a lot more about Obama the Ind's won't like.
But I'm figuring the war is everything. Isn't it?
1.20.2009
January 31, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But I'm figuring the war is everything. Isn't it?"
Uh, no.
Before disbanding Unity '08 had a feature that let registered users rank issues that were important to them. I wrote down those rankings the day before the site was shut down. Assuming those users are a fair representation of politically-active independents, here is how they ranked issues:
January 31, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, it's not everything, but it still amazes me that a Republican supporting the war and (to any extent) the administration can pull many independents, given the positions of "Iraq" and "upholding the constitution".
Also, I wonder how much time David Broder spent clicking through their web form to generate those percentages...
January 31, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I wonder how much time David Broder spent clicking through their web form to generate those percentages..."
:-)
The Unity '08 users were more likely to be disaffected Republicans and DNC Democrats than Libertarian independents who already have a home. Independent primary voters are likely drawn from all three orientations.
Cheer up. I was only speculating on what could have caused the polls you cited to change not who is likely to win in November.
January 31, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Unity!!! isn't the best sample of, well, anything. Strange bunch...
But, those top three issues are the Dems bread and butter.
1.20.2009
January 31, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surprisingly, the answer so far is "yes" -- the war doesn't seem to have that much salience anymore. Check out page 4 here, and note that Mitt Romney won the "strongly approve of Iraq" group, and McCain won by the largest margin in the "disapprove" groups. I was also under the impression that the war was just as unpopular among independents as among Democrats, so I'm not sure if people are clueless, or if they're focused more on their pocketbooks and other people's bedrooms.
January 31, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain won by the largest margin in the "disapprove" groups
I still come back to turnout, then. More people who may have otherwise voted for McCain but are against the war are going to vote for the Dem.
Hillary Hatred also skews everything against what I'm saying here, too. Not sure how much we can underestimate that factor, if it's her as the Dem.
1.20.2009
January 31, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Short answer - Independents. From what I've seen it is independent voters who have put McCain back in the running. And the meda, of course.
It did not help that the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates. Independents who might well have voted in Florida's Democratic primary may have thought it would be wasted effort and voted in the Republican one instead.
Kevin Drum had a post a couple of weeks ago about the California primaries. The Republican Primary is closed, limited to only registered Republicans, while the Democratic Primary is open which channels independent primary voters to the Democrats. Whichever primary independent voters use, they tend to stick with it for the general election.
Another effect of the Democratic non-primary in Florida was to give the media an excuse to put only McCain's win on their front-pages above the fold. Josh commented on their coverage right after the primary so I took a look at several front pages myself. Hillary's win was obscured while McCain's was emphasized.
January 31, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to add that the Kennedy coronation of Obama is not as wildly celebrated by independents as it was in the media and left blogistan. In fact, many might see it as more of a negative.
January 31, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to recall reading something in the TPMosphere to the effect that most upcoming Republican primaries are closed, and that it's not unlikely that McCain will run out of steam as independents are shut out of the nomination process. I hope that's correct - I can't really believe it, but he's starting to worry me.
January 31, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's name recognition for McCain, since he's being talked about lots, now. That makes for the large positive number, but it ignores whether those people will actually vote.
Both Clinton and Obama were showing leads over McCain before he became the clear front-runner. Note that Obama was doing slightly better against McCain than Hillary, both before and after.
January 31, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, and this is a huge plus for Obama in my book. But there was at least one recent poll in which Clinton did better against McCain. I also suspect that the "versus McCain" question will look totally different once either candidate starts mixing it up with him, but I don't have a good idea what the new playing field will look like.
January 31, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting--I just heard a snippet from Schwarzenegger's endorsement of McCain today and what it was was how McCain could reach across the aisle work together yadda yadda, all unity stuff that could have just as well have fitted Obama's message.
As Emma noted above in CA
"The Republican Primary is closed, limited to only registered Republicans, while the Democratic Primary is open which channels independent primary voters to the Democrats."
Poor Maria Shriver again, she will have to vote for Hillary to split the difference between hubby and family. :-)
January 31, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A quip that I heard in Juiliani’s endorsement of McCain that jumped out at me was that McCain would make,” a great Commander in Chief of the country”
That is scary if taken literally but I think it is what these types really want even when the current R. President has demonstrated such a bad record at the task the Constitution gives him, that of CiC of the military.
January 31, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you wish that we'd get back to a point when "Commander in Chief of the country" sounded like a grammatical error?
January 31, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, now that I've railed against everyone else for telling stories, I'm going to hypocritically indulge in the same. :-)
Watching the CA debate makes it clear to me that both Hillary and Barack are already running against McCain, together. Not only do they want to get Independents and Republicans' votes in the primary in CA, they are looking to the other states to pick up Independents for either of them. Is maybe why Edwards did not endorse either of them, there is some kind of Dem unity thing going on, coordinated by god knows who. They saw that it's time to switch from the diviseness or it will hurt whoever is the candidate in the general. I imagine they are probably looking at prognostications that tell them that the end result of the primaries, the way things have been trajecting, it is going to be an incredibly close delegate result split between them, and anything they can do now will change that very little. One will end up with the prize job, and the other will have the increased stature of a party leader, whether they take VP or are a cabinet person or stay in the Senate doesn't matter that much. They are looking to a future of working together against the GOP. End of story.
February 1, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink